 |
|
|
From the article:
Also in California, a woman last week won a $1 million lawsuit against the fertility clinic which implanted her with the wrong embryo, mistakenly giving her one created using another client's sperm (rather than sperm donated anonymously) instead of an embryo from two anonymous donors. She learned of the error after her son was born, and has been engaged in a custody battle ever since. The sperm donor and his wife - who had another child from the same batch of embryos - insist the boy is their son. The woman who bore him considers him hers. A judge declared her the mother, the sperm donor the father, and the donor's wife no relation.
I have not heard about this case, but I would like to know if the "father" was given custodial rights to the child, or merely given the privilege of supporting the child?
In another case, a lesbian couple produced a child using artificial insemnination with an egg donated from one mother implanted into the birth mother. When the relationship failed, the birth mother wrote the egg donor mother out of the equation. What was interesting was the comment of the donor's attorney...
Jill Hersh, K.M.'s attorney, is convinced the case wouldn't even be an issue if her client wasn't a lesbian. "If they were married, the donor document would have been irrelevant, and if they were unmarried, but a man and a woman, they wouldn't let the man off the hook," she says. Ms. Hersh cites a recent Southern California case where an unmarried man, living with a woman and helping to raise her child, was judged a legal parent.
So basically, it sounds like the attorney is arguing the donor should be put on the hook, and given the privilege of supporting the child without equal custody?
Is it me, or are things kind of out of control?"
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also in California, a woman last week won a $1 million lawsuit against the fertility clinic which implanted her with the wrong embryo, mistakenly giving her one created using another client's sperm (rather than sperm donated anonymously) instead of an embryo from two anonymous donors.
This is confusing. Whose egg produced the embryo, her's or the wife's?
It was amusing, though not fulfilling, to see the lesbian go through the same heartbreak that fathers do. Think she'll join a fathers' rights group?
Think, with cloning soon we'll be able to have a woman give birth to a daughter, then later in life the daughter turns around and gives birth to the mother!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hunchback says:
This is confusing. Whose egg produced the embryo, her's or the wife's?
The birth mother was impregnated with a fertilized egg taken from the other lesbian mother. The birth mother was awarded sole custody, and the egg donor mother was awarded squat.
This is as close as it gets to having two biological mothers. It's still a load of crap, but oh what clever technicians we have become...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:24 AM August 12th, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Things are just getting TOO SUREAL!
The more we try and simplify our lives the more COMPLICATED our lives become!
AAARRRGGGHHH!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, no, I'm confused too, but I meant about the first mentioned, million dollar case, not the one with the two lesbians.
Was it the sperm of the husband and the egg of the wife, or the sperm of the husband and the egg of the "surrogate mom" [for lack of a better term - the "sperm receiver"]??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:20 PM August 11th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Is it me, or are things kind of out of control?"
This is the kind of crap that happens when politicians, attorneys, and judges discard the importance of genetics in natural childbirth. The result is mass confusion, and literally over 10 million children in America alone that have no natural father.
Identifying the parents of a child is really quite simple. It is black-n-white. There is only ONE mother and ONE father. There cannot be two mothers. The only exception is in the case of adoption.
When a natural mother and father are the child's parents, DNA should be used to confirm that fact at birth. Until the father is confirmed, nobody should be permitted to claim they are the father. If the mother refuses to identify the correct father then she is unfit and the child should be put up for adoption (with very few exceptions). Note that in this case it doesn't matter what marital status is present at birth. If the father cannot be found the mother looses all rights because then is a negligent parent. Period.
When two lesbian bitches are involved in a birth and there is no father (sperm donor), the adoption should be solidified prior to the birth with no chance to change their minds.
When two male fags are involved in an adoption then it is final. No chance to change their mind. They are the parents. Period.
And no this is not an argument for fag marriage. Marriage is only possible between a man and a woman who can legally consent. It is not between a brother and sister or a man and dog.
When a couple donate an egg and sperm then when the child is born a DNA test should be conducted to confirm that the procedures went correctly. If they fail then the child is not theirs. There should not be any chance for them to keep the child. The child must be put up for adoption. If they happen to adopt that same child then they are the parents (preferable). Otherwise, they loose all chance of being that childs parents.
I can go on, but if you use genetics as an absolute foundation to establish the parents of a child then you'll get pretty much the same conclusions as me (with perhaps a few exceptions).
Those that want to use standards like "the psychological parent" and "parent by estopple" are legal frauds and pathological liars that hate men. They just want the man's money. To them men are nothing more than sperm donors from which they can seize wages and property.
Notice how they most always use these terms against men to seize money. The only way to eliminate this sort of corrupt thinking is to rely on genetic testing.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:31 PM August 11th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Also in California...
"It takes a village to raise a child," but in California these gender feminist, gender constructionists & social engineers can do it all by themselves. Here
Sadly, with elected representative like these promoting special priveleges for women, while excluding men, the village idiot has been upstaged and had to leave town.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:26 AM August 12th, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Ray.
Sounds like the Village idiot had the right idea.
I think I'll join him...!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:14 AM August 13th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
"It takes a village to raise a child," but in California these gender feminist, gender constructionists & social engineers can do it all by themselves.
Oh....I see. You mean that it takes a gender-bigot-socialist to raise a child, and they are what define the Hillary village. Interesting that men are not included in the village.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
